Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:26:47 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 Message-ID: <200512051526.48117.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20051205200709.GC13194@svcolo.com> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <200512011153.50287.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051205200709.GC13194@svcolo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 05 December 2005 03:07 pm, Joe Rhett wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:53:49AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > No, it is reading it right. When you disable a device in ACPI it merely > > doesn't assign resources to it. The OS can assign resources to it on its > > own though and re-enable the device. FreeBSD currently doesn't implement > > enough to get that right though. > > So what's involved in simply having it say > Found <device>: disabled in BIOS > > instead of half a dozen complaints for each disabled device? There's no disabled flag. If you have PNP OS set to yes in your BIOS, it is free to leave any devices not needed for booting unconfigured (like printer ports, serial ports, etc.) and there is no way for the OS to know if the BIOS didn't alloc resources because it is disabled or because the BIOS was just lazy. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512051526.48117.jhb>